On 11/16/2010 09:25 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
>
> These days of cheap drives, I use raid10 almost exclusively. and if its
> at all mission critical, I like to have 1-2 hotspares. if I was
> deploying a new server, and its workload was at all database-centric,
> I'd want to use use 2.5" SAS rather than 3.5" SATA
>
> With RAID10, the rebuild time is how long it takes to copy the one
> drive. if you have 6 drives in a raid10 and one fails, leaving 5, and
> another fails, there's only a 1 in 5 chance of that other failure being
> the mirror of the dead drive. If you have a hot spare, that
> rebuild starts immediately, reducing the window for that dreaded double
> failure to a minimum.
>
Oh, I agree - and when price is no object, or if write performance is
the bottleneck, or if you need huge numbers of drives, I love RAID10.
You can take it to crazy levels of redundancy + performance by going to
RAID0 layered over multiple three-way RAID1 arrays. Why have multiple
hotspares when you can go for N>2-RAID1 + 0 instead and get a hefty
performance boost on reads for almost free at even higher reliability?
--
Benjamin Franz
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
